No Concessions to China After the Mistaken Embassy Bombing

About the Author

In
the wake of the accidental May 7 bombing by the United States of
China's embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, and the ensuing
government-approved riots in China, the United States should resist
the temptation to make concessions to China. China demanded
apologies, an investigation of the incident, and punishment of
those responsible. President Bill Clinton has apologized, and an
investigation is under way. But there also have been reports that
China has further suggested that the United States relax conditions
for China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and
reduce its support for Taiwan. Meanwhile, China essentially has
halted diplomatic activity with the United States in areas like
arms control, military exchanges, and human rights.

Although the bombing was a tragedy, the
United States should not overreact to China's stage-managed
protests. These protests call into question the overly optimistic
objective of establishing a "constructive strategic partnership"
with China. The U.S. relationship with China needs to be placed on
firmer ground with more realistic expectations and a greater
appreciation of U.S. long-range interests in Asia.

THE LIMITS OF
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT

On
the evening of May 7, a U.S. aircraft mistakenly bombed China's
embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese nationals. Within a day,
President Clinton had apologized for the incident. After three
days, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen acknowledged the
"institutional error" that resulted in the use of outdated maps by
the United States. News of the bombing caused an almost immediate
outpouring of anti-American anger and protest in Beijing and many
other Chinese cities. Chinese police sat idle as a throng of
protesters hurled rocks through windows at the American embassy in
Beijing, keeping Ambassador James Sasser a virtual prisoner for
almost a week. China also brought its diplomatic relations with the
United States to a standstill, suspending talks on human rights,
arms control, and military exchanges and, more recently, barring
U.S. Navy ships from entering Hong Kong for rest stops.

President Clinton has invested an
unprecedented amount of presidential time (two summits in
Washington, D.C., and one nine-day trip to China) in building a
constructive partnership with China. The underlying assumption
seems to be that, if China received sufficient attention and
concessions, it would cooperate in advancing common interests in
Asia and beyond.

China's reaction to the bombing revealed
the limits of constructive engagement with China. The calculated
encouragement of nationalistic riots was a message to the United
States: Stop pushing China on human rights, espionage, missile
defense, and Taiwan, or else China will unleash the deep reservoir
of assertive nationalism within its borders and abroad. China seems
to sense weakness in the Clinton Administration and believes it can
extract strategic concessions from the United States as the price
of an isolated accident. This is not the behavior of a strategic
partner.

TIME FOR U.S.
VIGILANCE, NOT CONCESSIONS

Well
before the bombing, U.S. relations with China were riddled with
conflict and mutual suspicion. As the Cox Commission report shows,
U.S. national security was compromised by China's success in
obtaining U.S. missile technology via commercial transactions and
nuclear secrets by espionage. In recent months China has amassed a
significant missile arsenal near Taiwan, and has tried to destroy a
fledgling China Democracy Party. Most recently, despite 13 years of
negotiations, the two sides failed to reach an agreement on China's
entry into the WTO during Premier Zhu Rongji's visit to Washington,
D.C., last month. This is no time for the United States to make
political or economic concessions in order to revive U.S.-China
relations. Instead, the Clinton Administration should reassess its
policy toward China and devise one that better protects U.S.
interests.

No Excessive ApologiesAfter making several apologies, the Clinton Administration
feels it must send a special envoy to China to deliver an even more
formal apology. The United States, however, has apologized for its
error sufficiently. A more appropriate message for an envoy would
be that the United States remains committed to protecting security
and promoting freedom, and that this isolated accident will not
diminish U.S. concerns about China's military intentions, alleged
espionage, or human rights abuses. In addition, the United States
should not compensate China for the accident in Belgrade until
China agrees to pay for the deliberate damage to the American
embassy in Beijing and the consulate in Chengdu.

No Strategic ConcessionsThe United States must not offer China any concessions on
missile defense or on U.S. commitments to Taiwan. The United States
must continue to assert its right, and that of its allies, to
defense against missile attack. China is likely to push the Clinton
Administration to pledge not to assist Taiwan in developing its own
missile defense, but Taiwan's freedom and security must not be
compromised in the rush to apologize.

Press for Economic and Political
FreedomsInstead of backing down on demands for reform, the United
States should continue to press for legal reform, greater
transparency, the free flow of information, and competitive markets
for corporate control in China. Reforms in these areas would make
China more prosperous and stable, and would increase freedom and
openness. An effective legal system protects civil as well as
commercial rights. Competitive markets for corporate control would
have obvious implications for political control in China. And
freedom of information not only is vital to properly functioning
markets, it is the oxygen of democracy. The Clinton Administration
should continue to press for progress in these areas as part of
China's membership in the WTO.

Although Americans should express regret
over the tragedy in Belgrade, it is important that the United
States not allow its short-term response to undermine its long-term
responsibilities. The Clinton Administration set U.S. expectations
of change within China too high, and at the same time diminished
China's incentive to change by being overly willing to compromise.
The Administration should use China's suspension of dialogue on
human rights, arms control, and military contacts to undertake its
own reassessment of its policies in these areas. Ultimately,
short-term contrition is less important than building a China
policy that fosters developments within China that allow freedom,
opportunity, and civil society to flourish.

Stephen J. Yates
is a former Senior Policy Analyst in The Asian Studies Center at
The Heritage Foundation.